When do you genuflect in the Creed?
Not everyone genuflects (or, alternatively, bows) at the same place in the Creed. My practice has followed what Dr. David Scaer insisted was correct, that of genuflecting at the et homo factus est. Others genuflect/bow earlier, I suspect so that they can stand at the crucifixus (I stand at the et resurrexit), which is sometimes explained as being a confession that the crucifixion is the beginning of Christ’s exaltation/glorification. I get the point theologically, but as a practical matter I’ve never bought it. Plus, if there seems to be a tradition that doesn’t contradict the gospel, then we should keep it. At least, that’s how I read the Confessions.
Shortly after Christmas I asked my friend, Rev. Charles McClean, about it, since he is a fountain of knowledge, particularly on matters liturgical. Here was his response to me:
I checked The Conduct of the Services and discovered that Fr Piepkorn first mentions the northern European usage at the Et incarnatus: bowing from “And was incarnate” through “and was crucified” and then upright for “under Pontius Pilate” lest – to the medieval mind – we join in the mockery of Pilate’s soldiers. He then goes on to mention the genuflection at “AND WAS MADE MAN,” the custom praised in Luther’s commentary on St John’s Gospel (LW 22:102, 105). In my work I simply repeated Piepkorn’s work and gave the Luther citation.
I find it hilarious that one would stand at the reference to Pontius Pilate so as not to give him honor.
So, when do you genuflect, and why?
Related posts:
- Don’t mention the war I recently discovered Fawlty Towers, and in these dark...
- O beautiful paradox! It wasn’t until some years after seminary that I began...
Chris,
I think it makes more sense to stand after the homo factus est. You're not genuflecting for the sake of his humiliation, but for the sake of his Incarnation. Luther's lecture on John 1:14 is instructive.
I learned later in seminary formation that the ancient practice was not genuflection but a profound bow. Genuflecting came along when gothic chasubles were replaced by "fiddleback" chasubles. One cannot bow in a stiff "fiddleback" chasuble.
My practice is to bow profoundly at "came down from heaven" and stand up straight after "and was made man".
I bend the knee at "and was made man" and rise during the "and was crucified…", kneeling to the Lord in honor of the mystery of His incarnation, rising in honor of His victory at the cross. I always make sure I am not kneeling before Pilate, nor rising during the mention of his name.
My understanding is that this was a common ancient practice, but it seems like there were many variations. Older missals often have the words "homo factus est" in uppercase and/or in red.
I bow at "and was incarnate", and come back up after "and was made man".
I genuflect upon the words: "and was incarnate" and stand immediately after "and was made man." – Weedon (influenced here by Piepkorn)
Profound bow beginning with the words "…of the Virgin Mary…" held through "and was made man." Rise begins at the words "and was crucified…"
There is the practical consideration while honoring the mystery of the incarnation of how to be "fully bowed" or "fully knelt" (if genuflecting) at the "homo factus est."
A related question that the readers may ponder: Whether to bow at the mention of the worship of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son in the Third Article.
I think the matter may be one of practicality now more than theology. Homo Factus Est appears in larger or uppercase print in most 16th-17th century Lutheran missals & graduals. The choral setting of the creed in Josquin DePrez's Missa Pange Lingua dramatically changes character for "et incarnatus….et homo factus est."
Today we just speak it. We rush through it, in fact. If you tried to kneel for "Homo Factus Est" alone, you would mostly be falling and scrambling to come back up. This looks silly. Liturgical sense would suggest that it couldn't be right. So if we or the choir were to sing the creed again, we could gladly be both liturgically and theologically correct and follow Scaer's advice. But if we speak it like Missouri Synod Lutherans, we have to "get down" during more words, especially if the celebrant is advanced in years. Incarnatus-homo factus est seems logical. If one is going down slightly before or coming up slightly after (…came down from heaven – or – was crucified for us…) that also seems fine. Ceremonial whiplash was certainly not intended, nor is it particularly reverent.
We could make everyone happy if we sang the creed, but perhaps that is simply too much…
Don't ask me for references–my only sources are other confessional Lutherans that I respect (and some that I work with) and a little bit of what mindset I want to put myself in.
During the Creeds, I bow during the time Christ is on Earth (or under the Earth as He descended into Hell)–from conception to resurrection. I do this to humble myself and remind myself that I am a sinful human being in need of a Savior. I do this to remind myself that God loves me so much that He would do such a mysterious thing.